India at the UN - India's UNSC Permanent Seat Ambitions

[RajeshA]

This is actually an old topic and was discussed at length, in different threads

• Should India leave UN, if we don't get a veto seat in UNSC?
• Indian Foreign Policy
• etc.

I am just creating a dedicated thread for the topic of India at the UN, especially in regard to India's ambitions of getting a UNSC Permanent Seat!

Please post all relevant posts here!

In case, some such thread already exists, I would request the admins to please merge this thread with that one!

[RajeshA]

X-Posted from Should India leave UN, if we don't get a veto seat in UN Thread

Assuming this is the Thread dealing with India's admission to UNSC P5 Club!

X-Posting from Indo-UK: News & Discussion Thread

Looks like the Islamic Emirate of England,Occupied Scotland,Held Wales and Annexed N.Ireland is going to loose Scotland in a few of years.
I hope Scots take away their share of "crown jewels" from the Queendom .

Scotland independence vote looms after separatist win

EDINBURGH (AFP) – Scotland moved closer to a vote on independence after the party of nationalist First Minister Alex Salmond secured a historic majority Friday in elections for the Edinburgh parliament.
In the first overall majority for any party since the parliament opened in 1999, the Scottish National Party (SNP) battered the once dominant Labour Party to win 69 seats in the devolved 129-seat Holyrood assembly.
Salmond pledged to hold a referendum on Scottish independence within the next four years, something he could not deliver in his first term as the SNP were outnumbered by unionists.

Should Alba (Scotland) vote for independence, then basically UK is really finished! Cymru (Wales) too may go its separate way, if Plaid Cymru has its way! Northern Ireland would again descend into turmoil and it too could see a partition looming.

So if UK falls apart, what happens to its UNSC seat? When Soviet Union fell apart, Russia automatically took its seat amongst the P5 of UNSC. Would it be the same case with UK? Perhaps not!

In 1991, other than the P5 there was no military power worth talking about. Germany just go united. Japan was happy with the US umbrella, happy to mint money, not apprehensive about Chinese power. Brazil just had a new democratic president elected who was fighting hyperinflation. And India was going through our own economic crisis, which paved the way for reforms. South Africa was still in transition from Apartheid but still under White Rule. The G4+1 were nowhere to be seen on the world stage as powers of relevance! So when Soviet Union fell apart, nobody really contested Russia taking over. In fact Russia was still a great power, even if split up, and it had a huge army and nuclear strike force! So there was actually no reason to contest Russia keeping Soviet Union's seat!

20 years hence, things seem a lot different!

India today is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, with the world's third largest military, and a burgeoning middle class. Germany has consolidated its unification and is the engine of European growth and stability. Japan has been stung by Chinese rise, and now feels like strengthening its strategic bargaining position. Brazil has become the most stable of the countries in South America and posted a GDP growth rate of 7.5%. South Africa has provided stability to Sub-Saharan Africa and is considered a leader in the African Continent!

But no other country deserve to be a part of the UNSC P5 more than India simply because of the 1.2 billion strong representativeness of Indian membership.

So as UK falters as 6 million Scots give England the kick, India should step in and demand that the UNSC P5 seat should pass on to another country of the British Commonwealth, England not being worthy of the club!

In fact India should see to it that Scotland is granted independence, and we should base our support for Scottish independence on the same grounds as we demanded that the English give independence to its former colonies! In return we should get the Scots to endorse Indian efforts to become a P5 member.

This is the perhaps the easiest way to get into P5. The huge reform one keeps on hoping from UN is simply too long in the future!

We should take UK's seat in the P5!

[Pratyush]

Rajesh,

The better idea would be to consolidate the French and UK votes for EU. As neither of them deserve the position on their own merits.

JMT

[RajeshA]

Rajesh,

The better idea would be to consolidate the French and UK votes for EU. As neither of them deserve the position on their own merits.

Pratyush ji,

in an ideal world, should we try to design the UNSC, it would look a lot different in 2011.

I think instead of looking for ideal solutions, we should simply embrace playing politics. France would actually be very glad if it were the only power to represent Europe in the UNSC. It increases its prestige multi-fold. We should harness that interest on France's side and use it to push UK out of the UNSC P5. Russia too would be pleased to see its old Great Game rival UK bite the dust. The knives would certainly be out.

I would think that USA would not be in favor of such a development, as they depend on USA-UK entente in UNSC and world politics to sway UNSC behind its point of view. No other duo in UNSC has such a strong alliance. Also PRC may not like the development, as it would face its Asian rival, India ascend to the high table. But they may not be able to influence the way the Scots vote, and bring Britannia crumbling down.

The question of the single European seat left in the UNSC P5, being transferred from France to the EU is a long term thing. It is also something nobody can force through easily. France would not be willing to part with its seat, and EU would not be able to coerce France to do so. Other than that the only means would be if the whole UN comes to such a decision, and that would only happen in the framework of a comprehensive UN including UNSC reform, something for which we should not hold our breath. Ultimately it may happen, but that is not really a train for which India should wait.

The prospect of UNSC reform with permanent membership increased is a very distant possibility. Even if it happens, the new permanent members would not be having veto power. It would create a three-tier hierarchy in the UNSC, and India would get imprisoned in the second tier for the next half-a-century at least. That is not something we should crave for.

As I see it, the possibility of UK break up would give an impetus to a reopening of the question of P5 membership and that provides India with an opportunity like none else to overthrow UK for good, and take her place as a full-fledged P5 member.

There are a few things we need to do before that:

• We should position ourselves as the leader of the Commonwealth, much more so than even UK.
• We should assure USA that we can do business with them, in many little ways, which do not affect our national interests.
• We should continue to build on our relations with France, for in this coup, we would need France's help.
• We should do everything possible that contributes to the destabilization of the unity of UK, which includes independence for Scotland. We should encourage Plaid Cymru to demand independence for Wales and where possible to generously finance their election campaigns. We should also encourage Ireland and Catholic Irish to create rifts in Northern Ireland. The Brits have been very much active in pushing for Kashmiri "self-determination" for whatever "global" interests they have. We should repay them in kind, because now our global ambitions are bound to UK's breakup. We do not need to be apologetic towards it. We should push for it, all in the name of anti-colonialism movement against the English. Of course we can still have good relations with England/UK. But it is time to use our fingers to poke in British wounds.
• It suffices if we have excellent relations with France and Germany, instead of UK in the EU. There are many other countries in the EU to balance off some deterioration in relations between India and UK. Some tension in the relations does not mean India would be hurt too much. We need not appease each and everybody in the international arena.

[RajeshA]

Originally posted by Gerard in Indo-UK: News & Discussion Thread

Sun Setting on British Power: Wall Street Journal

The U.K. is in the midst of the most aggressive fiscal tightening since World War II—a process that U.S. defense officials are watching with concern. In October, following a strategic review, Prime Minister David Cameron announced plans to cut the military budget by 7.5% and the head count by 10% over five years, and to retire lots of equipment, leaving the armed forces with 40% fewer tanks and 35% less heavy artillery. The planned cuts will come on top of an 8% reduction in personnel during the 13-year tenure of the former Labour Party government.

At a hearing Wednesday before a Parliamentary defense committee, the heads of Britain's army, navy and air force said the U.K. would no longer be a "full spectrum" military force—one capable of both low-intensity combat such as counterinsurgency and the kind of major operations required for state-on-state combat.

Perhaps then UK should make way for a country which can sustain a "full spectrum" force!

When the United Nations came into being on 24th October, 1945, India was part of the British Empire, hence of UK, which became a veto-carrying permanent member of the UN Security Council. The incorporation of India within the British Empire gave U.K. the power and right to the permanent seat in the UNSC. As U.K. now unravels further with the creation of a separate Scotland, and loses its military edge and economic health, it is only natural that the part of the original British Empire takes over the permanent seat in the UNSC, which allowed UK its seat, that is militarily and economically the strongest today - India!

Without India being within the British Empire, UK would never have gotten its veto-carrying permanent seat in the UNSC on 24th October, 1945.

UK should make way for India!

[Pranav]

Only countries with proven thermo-nuclear weapons and SLBM capability are in the UNSC P5. India is not in the same league.

[Hitesh]

That's a fallacy. At the time of the formation of UN, China, USSR, UK, and France did not have thermo nukes or SLBM. Moreover, the permanent seat of China was represented by Taiwan from 1945 to 1971 until a general assembly replaced Taiwan's seat with PRC. So your argument does not hold merit.

[Pranav]

That's a fallacy. At the time of the formation of UN, China, USSR, UK, and France did not have thermo nukes or SLBM. Moreover, the permanent seat of China was represented by Taiwan from 1945 to 1971 until a general assembly replaced Taiwan's seat with PRC. So your argument does not hold merit.

At that time thermo-nukes did not exist. But the basic deciding factor is brute force. Today, that means proven thermo-nukes and SLBMs. No amount of pleading and hand-wringing will change that.

[svinayak]

That's a fallacy. At the time of the formation of UN, China, USSR, UK, and France did not have thermo nukes or SLBM. Moreover, the permanent seat of China was represented by Taiwan from 1945 to 1971 until a general assembly replaced Taiwan's seat with PRC. So your argument does not hold merit.

PRC was a poor country with no large navy or hi air force. It was made a P5 in 1972.

[Pranav]

That's a fallacy. At the time of the formation of UN, China, USSR, UK, and France did not have thermo nukes or SLBM. Moreover, the permanent seat of China was represented by Taiwan from 1945 to 1971 until a general assembly replaced Taiwan's seat with PRC. So your argument does not hold merit.

PRC was a poor country with no large navy or hi air force. It was made a P5 in 1972.

PRC was one of the 5 nuclear powers in 1972. PRC has been a pet experiment for western elites. And in 1972, it was being propped up against the Soviets. So yes, if you can provide some special benefits to dominant actors you may have a chance.

The west is probably regretting its backing to the PRC now.

I will say that India is unlikely to get permanent membership without first achieving the status of a first-rate power.

[Hitesh]

I will say that India is unlikely to get permanent membership without first achieving the status of a first-rate power.

The day it happens is the day that India decides that UN is a bunch of crap and deserves to die and UN will die.

[RajeshA]

I will say that India is unlikely to get permanent membership without first achieving the status of a first-rate power.

We don't need to be a first-rate power for a second-rate organization! Let's consider UNSC permanent seat simply as another means to an end of becoming a first-rate power, and not as the Nirvana for our country, which we may deserve only once we have reached perfection!

[svinayak]

PRC was a poor country with no large navy or hi air force. It was made a P5 in 1972.

PRC was one of the 5 nuclear powers in 1972. PRC has been a pet experiment for western elites. And in 1972, it was being propped up against the Soviets. So yes, if you can provide some special benefits to dominant actors you may have a chance.

The west is probably regretting its backing to the PRC now.

I will say that India is unlikely to get permanent membership without first achieving the status of a first-rate power.

PRC was propped up to bring down India.
When large countries see that another power is struggling then they would gang up together to bring it down.
Even destroy it completely. That is what they decided in 1975 onwards

[Pranav]

PRC was propped up to bring down India.
When large countries see that another power is struggling then they would gang up together to bring it down.
Even destroy it completely. That is what they decided in 1975 onwards

Interesting viewpoint - India has been a deeply corrupt state, full of Gandhian and Nehruvian delusions. Obviously others would see this as a state that did not deserve to survive. Even now we are struggling with the same handicaps. But I think the Soviets were also a target for the PRC.

Also, PRC became a thermonuclear power in 1967. So it was definitely a major power before it achieved P5 status.

To Hitesh and Rajesh - let us take a step back to understand what UNSC veto means. It means that you have the brute power to seriously mess up the plans of other powers. Therefore the other powers decide that they will save themselves risk and trouble by taking your prior consent. If you don't have the brute force why should anybody bother with either your barking or your pleading. Nobody is going to give you a veto on a platter.

[RajeshA]

Rajesh - let us take a step back to understand what UNSC veto means. It means that you have the brute power to seriously mess up the plans of other powers. Therefore the other powers decide that they will save themselves risk and trouble by taking your prior consent. If you don't have the brute force why should anybody bother with either your barking or your pleading. Nobody is going to give you a veto on a platter.

Pranav ji,

There are several ways of approaching the UNSC veto-carrying permanent member seat (P-5 seat):

• We consider it irrelevant, but then it would be a case of sour grapes, and its use has been apparent from the hold the P5 have had on world politics.
• We consider it too demanding, in which case we put it on a pedestal like some extremely beautiful and graceful woman, and consider ourselves unworthy of it, in which case we will never be good enough for her.
• We consider it ego-boosting and something to crave for like Nirvana, Soma and Gajjar ka Halwa all under lock and key, with the 5 Guardians overlooking its safety. We start thinking we have to sleep with every door keeper, so they let us in. Then you have the DDM and the pseudo-seculars dancing jiggy in the rain, every time some P-5 says something positive about our worthiness. In this case we keep on getting screwed by the 5 pimps.
• We consider it our right. And if we cannot get our right, neither should anybody else, or at least we should not recognize anybody else's right. Either we sit at the table or we break the table. That was the subject of the thread: Should India leave UN, if we don't get a veto seat in UNSC?
• We consider it ours when the time is ripe! We just wait for the UN to be reformed. The chances are we will get no veto even if we get permanent seat, and the UN reforms may not come about in the foreseeable future.
• We consider it doable, and we look for ways without begging, prostituting, or waiting for hell to freeze over!

It looks right now that Britain is weak, and we should use the opportunity to push it over the edge of its permanent seat!

[RajeshA]

Originally posted by Philip in Indo-UK: News & Discussion Thread

Scotland to turn away from Englamd and towards Scandanavia once Independence is obtained.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 72337.html

Bye, bye England? SNP plans closer Scandinavian ties after independence
Document reveals government wants to turn away from London if it wins referendum

Xcpts:

An independent Scotland would shift much of its attention away from the UK to become a member of the Scandinavian circle of countries, with its own army, navy and air force modelled on its Nordic neighbours, according to detailed plans being drawn up by the SNP.

Senior SNP strategists are compiling a "prospectus for independence" which they hope to use to sell the idea of separation to Scots ahead of the referendum in 2014 or 2015.

The document is not due to be published in full for another year but SNP insiders have disclosed key extracts.

They reveal that SNP leaders want an independent Scotland to look north and east in Europe for partnerships, trade and key defence relationships, rather than continuing to focus on western Europe and the Commonwealth, as the UK does now.

Senior Nationalists, including Alex Salmond, have made several trips to Scandinavia over the last couple of years, meeting ministers and officials in an attempt to pave the way for greater co-operation if Scotland becomes independent, particularly on energy. Indeed, initial plans have already been drawn up for an electricity super-grid between Scotland and Norway.

SNP strategists insist that Scotland would continue to be extremely close to the rest of the UK, which would remain its biggest trading partner, but they also believe that Scotland has more in common with its Scandinavian neighbours than the UK does and they are keen to take this relationship to a new level.

The Scandinavian approach is being driven by Angus Robertson, the SNP's defence and foreign affairs spokesman in Westminster. Mr Robertson said recently that Scotland's relationship with its Scandinavian neighbours had suffered because of a southern bias since the Act of Union in 1707.

He declared: "Our neighbours to the north and east have already made a good start and work constructively together. We need to join them and play our part. The UK has opted out of a serious approach. We should not."

As well as being used to sell the idea of an independent Scotland at home, the prospectus for independence will be the basis for negotiations with Westminster if the referendum is won. In those negotiations, Alex Salmond will demand 9 per cent (roughly Scotland's share of the UK population) of all UK assets, including defence hardware.

Under the plans being drawn up there would an independent Scottish navy based at Faslane – currently the base of the UK's Trident submarine fleet – and a Scottish air force based at Lossiemouth and Kinloss in Moray.

SNP strategists also expect an independent Scotland to be given the Royal Regiment of Scotland, whose five regular and two territorial battalions would form the backbone of a new independent army.

The Nationalists who are drawing up the prospectus have been told to make sure it is signed off before 2014, the earliest likely date for the referendum.

Scottish independence: how it would look

Trade

Closer co-operation with Sweden, Denmark and Norway on trade, energy grids and oil and gas exploration.

Defence

An independent Scottish navy based at Faslane. The Clyde facility would be transformed from its current role as the base of the UK's Trident submarine fleet to become the headquarters of the Scottish navy. The navy would be similar to those run by Norway and Denmark, with a small number of frigates, a few corvettes and patrol vessels and possibly a couple of submarines.

An independent Scottish air force based at Lossiemouth and Kinloss in Moray, centred on a squadron of Lockheed Orion P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft. These would have to be bought by the Scottish Government at a cost of £29m each.

An independent Scottish army. SNP strategists expect an independent Scotland to be given the Royal Regiment of Scotland by the Ministry of Defence. The regiment's five regular and two territorial battalions would form the new Scottish army.

Transport

The exploitation of new sea lanes from Asia over the top of Russia, which are being opened up because of global warming, and possibly establishing a major new container port in Fife to rival Rotterdam.

Considering that UK is going to fall apart and is now going to be even smaller in size, it is only fair that the biggest country of the "British" Commonwealth takes over UK's seat in United Nations Security Council!

[RajeshA]

If India takes over UK's seat at the UNSC, we would be sure of at least support from France and Russia.

Can USA and PRC really resist considering that UK would be left with only 2/3rds of its former area. Should Wales and Northern Ireland follow it would be even less. Not just that, UK would also lose its access to North Sea Brent Crude Oil Fields. Whaattt a pitty!

UK is on its way to becoming totally irrelevant! This break-up is going to make the position of UK untenable in the UNSC. In 1991 the P5 did not think over much in giving Russia the seat of Soviet Union. But this is 2011, and the break up would be in 2014.

Russia could possibly want to get at the Brits - the old rivalry and may be willing to throw the Brits in the sea, and be willing to make this an issue. Russia need not fear that a shake-up of the UNSC could mean a loss of its seat, so the Russians may not mind making it an issue. If the P5 do not agree with retaining UK unanimously, the UK seat is up for grabs!

[subodh]

The UN is exactly as relevent or irrelevant to India as India makes it to be be - for the most part.

On trade and enviro issues, India has shown a willingness to calmy sabotage and unwind global dialoguie that was being steered in a certain direction by the West - albiet, with Chinese support. India needs to continue to be brutal in its pursuit of self ineterest, and make no apologies for it.

On force projection and an expeditionary capability, there is the issue of capacity and then the issue of political will. The former is probably there, the latter is probably not. India has been proactive on this front when it comes to the Somali pirates issue.

At some stage, a force projection for a cause that benifits India, done outside the UN mandate will make it obvious what India thinks of this body.

End of the day, the P5 would behave the same as they always do, UN or not, all their stranglehold on the UN does is gives them a fig leaf to post-facto cover their actions with a thin veneer of legitmacy. I am not sure how many buy that, and how really needed that veneer is.

[RajeshA]

subodh ji,

China provides cover to all sorts of countries for their mischievous ways: the Myanmar junta, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Pakistan (as was seen with declaring some people as terrorists). In return these countries are helping China's global reach.

That is what veto power in UNSC can mean!

[subodh]

Fair point Rajeshjee.

But to be honest, India can too, and by some retarded Western standards, already does - and j@ckshyte anyone can do about that.

India's support to Myanmar (China is not the only one), or the quick reaction to the attempted coup in the Maldives - when there is a will, India has shown an ability to execute - covertly or overtly. And then, lets not forget IG and 1971 - UN or no UN, with the US up India's behind.

I do think, Chinese misbehaviour would continue if by some magic, the UN did not exist tomorrow - their actions are enabled by this vile organisation, but that help is not critical to the underlying activity's sucess.

[ramana]

I think India shouldnt go for the UNSC seat as it will be constrained. In Intl Rel you have to give up something to gain something. Its better to let the UNSC become decrepit and keep reminding the world that its a non-representative body and thus defacto illegitimate.

Need to build new structures of stability with proper representation with clean slate for the new 21st century.

UN is based on the politics of the 19th century. All the permamnet powers are those that gained prominence in that century.

[RajeshA]

Published on Dec 16, 2011
India strong candidate for permanent UNSC membership: Russia: IANS

MOSCOW: Russia Friday reaffirmed its support for a permanent seat for India in an expanded United Nation Security Council (UNSC) with President Dmitry Medvedev terming it "a strong candidate" for a place on the international body's high table.

"India is a strong candidate for a permanent membership in the UNSC," Medvedev said at a joint press conference he addressed along with visiting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after their summit level talks here.

He also called for the other permanent members of the UNSC -- the US, France, Britain, and China -- to affirm their support for India, as also all other members of the United Nations itself, as and when the UNSC reforms are carried out.

Four members of the five-member UNSC, except China, have openly backed India's permanent membership to the high body. There have been calls that China should reciprocate the support that India had extended it in 1949 after a revolution effected a regime change in Beijing.

[aniket]

Will the Good BRICS Please Stand Up?.

India sought to block efforts by the United States, France, and Britain to raise Syria's growing assault on civilians in the Security Council, provoking some very ill will. "They were," says a diplomat from one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, "obstructive and not helpful."

How will this affect our chance to get a permanent seat ?

[Virupaksha]

Will the Good BRICS Please Stand Up?.

India sought to block efforts by the United States, France, and Britain to raise Syria's growing assault on civilians in the Security Council, provoking some very ill will. "They were," says a diplomat from one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, "obstructive and not helpful."

How will this affect our chance to get a permanent seat ?

In zero ways.

If one thinks that India will get veto seat by being a good dog to the west, why will the chinese/ russia agree. It is only India makes sure that any order of security council is un implementable without India's approval, it will get the seat. Get some random, making sure they are random, decisions of the security council, get them challenged in the general assembly and win even more randomly. Tell p5 India is doing that only for seat.


In short, be a Pain-da-butt

[ramana]

India shouldn't fall for this bauble of illusory power. Its more like a chain to bound India again into obeying international aka Wastern norms. When the next millienium is ours why submit to fake norms?

[VikramS]

UNSC seat is frankly meaningless in practical terms. If India's interests are truly at stake then it is highly unlikely that all the P5 will gang up on her. When it comes to ganging up, they can do without the P5 support as it is happening with the case of Iran.

What it does give is a recognition of a seat at the table. It is nice to have, but not a must have.

[RajeshA]

The value of UNSC permanent seat is in protecting the many little countries in their struggles with the big bad wolves in the UNSC.

For example, with the West threatening Sri Lanka with human rights abuse accusations, Sri Lanka has no choice but to go closer to China, because Sri Lanka needs Chinese veto in the UNSC. India cannot protect Sri Lanka in UNSC, but China can!

That power is real and not imaginary!

[Philip]

The UNSC seat is like chasing a mirage.Even if it evntually comnes,it will be so watered downthat it would be meaningless.

It is far better for India to take the lead and organise an IOR strategic entity of nations,reinvigorate the NAM and take BRICS further forward to include energy security between BRICS members (to avoid spats between them).SAARC should be renamed (a vastu killer,rhymes with "shark" and has produced nothing of note) SAFE (South Asian Federation Economic).These entities should take up the issues affecting their regions and leave the UN to its usual business of expelling hot air.In time these entities will be respected more than the UN which will either have to genuinely reform or fade away.

[abhischekcc]

+1 to Philips' post

[abhischekcc]

The quest for a UNSC permanent membership is an albatross that India has put around its own neck deliberately.

I said this before - India will get UNSC membership when the cost of keeping India out will be higher than the cost of keeping India in. What are we doing to hurt the interests of those countries that oppose up? - Nothing. So what are our chances of getting the post - nothing.

[Prem]

India bats for an expanded UNSC with 25 members
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/india ... 120411.htm

India [ Images ] has said the 15-nation United Nations Security Council should be expanded to include 10 more members, cautioning that delay in reforming the powerful world body will be at the international community's "own perilParticipating in the 8th round of intergovernmental negotiations on UN Security Council reforms, India's Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri said India is of the view that reform and expansion of the Security Council are essential if it is to reflect contemporary reality.
A reformed UNSC, with expansion in the permanent and non-permanent categories, will enhance the Council's credibility and effectiveness in dealing with global issues."We delay reform of the Security Council at our own peril. Early reform of the Council must be pursued with renewed vigour and urgently enacted," Puri said on Tuesday.Puri outlined India's view that an expanded Council should have a total of 25-26 members.He said structural reform of the Council should respond to the pressing need for credible improvements in the global governance architecture."The clamour for such change is increasing by the day. Even as we speak, concrete developments are being witnessed in other international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank," he said.here is emerging consensus that reform will be complete only when the question of the veto in all its aspects and manifestations is comprehensively addressed, he added.Noting that considerable time has already been spent in exchanging views on how and when to start real negotiations, Puri said deliberations so far have shown that a large majority of the UN membership wants expansion of the Council in both the permanent and non-permanent categories.

[RajeshA]

Published on Feb 28, 2013
By Glenn Campbell
Scottish independence: Scotland and EU membership: BBC

A third European foreign minister has told the BBC an independent Scotland would have to apply for EU membership.

Latvia's Edgars Rinkevics said Scotland would be considered a "new country".

The Baltic state is due to take over the EU presidency shortly after the Scottish independence referendum, in autumn 2014.

SNP ministers say they would seek to negotiate continued membership in the event of a "Yes" vote, without the need for a formal application.

The comments by Mr Rinkevics came after similar remarks by foreign ministers for the Czech Republic and Ireland.

The Latvian foreign minister also raised the possibility that the rest of the UK might not automatically inherit the UK's membership of the EU.

He said the European Commission was "considering" that question and that a "solid legal opinion" was needed.

Mr Rinkevics, said: "If Scotland clears independence, it is a new country. The procedure of admitting a new member to the EU would have to be followed.

India, Russia and France should ensure that "Rest of UK" also does not automatically inherit its UNSC Permanent Seat!

[RamaY]

^ Sadhu sadhu!

India should move smartly here.

[SSridhar]

Forging a new horse-shoe - Hardeep S Puri, The Hindu Op-Ed

In a debate on Security Council reform last year, a Russian representative assertively stated: “We deserve to be there because we won it in our history on the battlefield.” I had then quipped that if ‘to the victor belong the spoils’ is the criteria cast in stone for a seat on the high table, the battlefield now is fundamentally different from 1945. If, on the other hand, a ‘third world war’ is required to reform the horse shoe, this time around the victors will emerge from the size of their economies. The two European permanent members appeared worried then!

I cite this only to illustrate that our quest for seeking reform of the Council must never underestimate the challenges we confront.
The P-5 club

First, the exclusive P-5 (Permanent Five) club. Theirs is an entrenched reluctance to share the high table with others and, from their perspective, understandably so. Presently, at least two of them would be hard put to justify their privileged position. Frequently, the P-5 mouth platitudes to please the aspirants, even whilst their negotiators at the United Nations do whatever it takes to hold back progress. Clearly, whenever we move, we would need to hold them to the public pronouncements of their leaders and try to get at least three of them on board. In the end, whenever the vote eventually takes place they could still be on the opposing side, as in 1963, when the first expansion took place.

Second, the UfC or the Coffee Club countries which at best total 10-11, including our neighbour on the west, along with Italy and a few others. Secure in the knowledge that they would never make it to the expanded setting, they work overtime to create fissures and stall forward movement to keep the house divided.

Before examining how critically close we are today, one needs to address the cynics in our own system, who question both our credentials and the need for permanent membership. Being on the Security Council is no longer an option or a luxury for India. It is an absolute imperative. The vast expanse of issues on the Council’s plate has transcended its traditional mandate of international peace and security to practically all matters of critical importance including climate change, access to mineral resources, illicit flow of arms/drugs, non-proliferation and even HIV/AIDS. Not joining the pool of ‘chefs’ preparing the global menu could result in ending up on the menu itself!

Need for 128 votes

For Security Council reform to take place, a minimum of 128 votes will be required in the General Assembly on a resolution calling for expansion in both the categories. In a subsequent phase, individual countries would have to demonstrate their ability to garner 128 votes for their candidatures. Ratification by legislatures of member states would then make possible the Charter amendment.

Why is the present juncture a make or break scenario?

In March 2009, we succeeded in upgrading to an Intergovernmental Negotiation (IGN) process. In December 2009, led by India, Brazil and others, we organised a letter signed by 140 countries to the Chair of IGN, resulting in text based negotiations. After eight rounds of negotiations in the IGN, we now have the basis for a text and a formal draft resolution from the CARICOM (Caribbean Community) which could be put to vote!

African Group

The biggest and ‘most difficult’ group to get on board was the 53 strong African Group, represented through the C-10 (a group of 10 African countries chaired by Sierra Leone to negotiate UNSC reform on behalf of Africa). Bonded by the ‘Ezulwini Consensus,’ a maximalist position demanding two permanent and two non-permanent seats for Africa with a veto, their claim is based in the rationale that 80 per cent of UNSC’s work is focused on Africa, and yet they do not have permanent membership.

Another critical stakeholder, a group of 40 developing countries, the L69 (known by the Resolution Number-L69 of 2008, it includes India, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria in addition to 14 African members, CARICOM and Small Island Developing States) has also been proactively pushing for early reforms of the Council.

Through a process of painstakingly long and difficult negotiations, a convergence has now been achieved between the African Group (C10) and L69 on a common draft resolution that seeks to expand the Security Council. By end December 2012, we had an agreement on a common text. This awaits formal endorsement through a ministerial meeting scheduled for April 2013.

In the interim, CARICOM heads of states/governments met in Haiti on 18-19 February 2013 and instructed their negotiators to “press forward with urgency.” To everyone's surprise and collective delight, the CARICOM chair issued a draft resolution, broadly along the lines of the L69-C-10 text, and called for consultations.

It is the best possible assimilation of a comprehensive approach, as repeatedly articulated in the IGN. It would take the UNSC membership to 27, with two permanent and two additional non-permanent seats for Africa, two additional permanent and one non-permanent seat for Asia, one permanent seat for Western Europe (WEOG), one non-permanent seat each for Eastern Europe & Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and one permanent and one non-permanent seat for Latin America and Caribbean States.

On the question of veto, it makes no distinction between existing and new permanent members. This provides an excellent basis to begin the negotiations for a final vote. Given the three double vetoes on Syria last year, the mainstream view is that a ‘veto restraint agreement’ is the need of the hour.

Therein lies the convergence with the G4 — the other big player in the UNSC reform process, which would also bring Germany and Japan to join this resolution, hopefully sooner than later.

The time to act, therefore, is now. We have before us, for the first time, a draft resolution on which the largest possible consensus could be achieved. It needs to be put to a vote on the floor of the General Assembly. Governments are risk averse at the best of times and South Block is no exception. A considered call will have to be made.

First expansion

There is only one precedent for such a vote. In 1963, when the first expansion occurred, the voting sheet read: 97- Yes, 11-No and 4-abstentions. The United States and the United Kingdom abstained, USSR and France voted against, and Taiwan voted in favour. History will most likely repeat itself, as it often does.

We need to draw inspiration from the African Asian solidarity prevailing in 1963 that brought about that decisive change, and recall what the Indian delegate, Mr. Mishra had then said in that historic debate: “At the beginning of the session, it was difficult to imagine the way in which things would move, and there were cynics among us who until even a few days ago thought that we were engaged in fruitless discussions. The negotiations have been successful because the African Asian delegations were solid on this question. Their solidarity did not come out of any desire ... to gang up against other delegations in the Assembly. It was born out the belief of the African Asian delegations that their cause was just and the time was ripe...”

(Hardeep S. Puri was the Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations in New York)

[nvishal]

India has no role to play in the UN

[RamaY]

nvishal garu,

As long as UN exists, India deserves and should demand permanent UNSC seat with Veto power. Perhaps this is the best strategy to destroy UN and become a forming permanent member of VK "Vasudhaika Kutumbam (C)"

[RajeshA]

Published on May 05, 2013
Scottish independence: New state 'would be welcome at UN': BBC News



Some assumptions being made here!

[svinayak]

These are just a game between known people and region.
Nothing will happen

[RajeshA]

Well there is the General Assembly and India's ability to bribe, especially the Russians and the Africans for GA!

[RajeshA]

T - 2 Days